In WPA 509 of 2023 -CAL HC- Calcutta High Court orders release of DRB Infrastructure's trailers on furnishing bank guarantee
Justice Krishna Rao [16-06-2023]

Read Order: DRB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, June 28, 2023: The High Court of Calcutta, in an interim order, has instructed the respondent to release the trailers belonging to DRB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner), which were loaded with machinery and equipment. However, this release was subject to the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee that covers the penalty imposed by the respondent through their order dated 15.02.2023.

Brief facts of the case were that the petitioner, a construction company, was awarded a sub-contract for earth excavation, embankment/subgrade work, and drain work on an expressway project in Jammu. To carry out the work, the petitioner transported its own machinery from Arunachal Pradesh to Jammu using two trailers through a third-party consignment. However, on 26.12.2022, respondent intercepted the trailers. Subsequently, the respondent imposed a penalty on the petitioner for violating the provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act/Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules. The petitioner filed the present writ application seeking the release of the trailers.

The petitioner argued that the seizure of the machinery by respondent has resulted in a significant hindrance to the petitioner's work. As a result, the petitioner is unable to carry out the work that was awarded to them in Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the petitioner requested the release of the seized machinery so that the petitioner can proceed with the completion and execution of the awarded work.

Since the petitioner had further challenged the order issued by the respondent on 15.02.2023, the Court held that the writ petition cannot be disposed of without the exchange of affidavits. Therefore, the respondents were instructed to file an affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks, and the petitioner was granted a two-week period to file a reply to the said affidavit, if necessary.